Legal Opinion

Keever & Associates, Inc. v. Randall

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided September 20, 2005No. 22857-6-IIIPublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 Administrative time expended by a contractor is generally not a cost contemplated by the parties in a cost-plus construction contract. E.g., 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 495 (2004). Here, after a bench trial the court found that the owner agreed to pay the general *736contractor the actual costs of labor and materials, plus 10 percent for overhead and profit. It then determined that the president of the general contracting firm should have been paid for his administrative time supervising a contract because his time was an actual cost to the general contractor. This conclusion is not supported…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District v. DickieWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  3. LaMon v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Willener v. SweetingWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Mason v. Mortgage America, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1990

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Green v. Normandy ParkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  2. Green v. Normandy Park Riviera Section Community Club, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  3. Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  4. Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  5. In re the Marriage of ZiglerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API